Before finalizing our construction of the generated epistemic Kripke model \(\mathfrak {M}_g\) , let us pause for a while and genuinely think about what we are actually doing now and why we are doing it. Surely, we desire a familiar, tidy and expressive epistemic Kripke model that can aid us to reason about the current scenario, as epistemic logic has been thoroughly studied over the decades and has proved to be a quite accurate and productive depiction of agents' knowledge, especially helpful when dealing with intricate situations such as the muddy children puzzle and the Byzantine generals problem [1]}. Nonetheless, there remains one fatal concern. Indeed, the common method to obtain epistemic Kripke models in reality still relies largely on human intuition and so is rather obscure, a deficiency which in fact greatly impedes such kind of logic approach to knowledge presentation from being universally put into practical application [2]}. For instance, just under our current setting of the above Example , we have already formalized the argument Kripke model \(\mathfrak {N}\)  with ease, simply as a literal transcription of the debate per se, however, the task of generating the epistemic Kripke model for Alice and Bob is far from obvious or even natural. After all, in the realistically physical world, it is solely Alice and Bob's extrinsic debate that is plainly accessible to other audience, whereas their intrinsic knowledge could be indirectly inferred but never directly observed.
